Other

Let the other guy pay

Rasmussen Reports released a poll this week that claimed that “most Americans think the historic shuttle program has been well worth the money.” “Most” might be stretching matters a bit: just over half, 52%, said the program was worth it, versus 28% who disagreed and 20% who weren’t sure. Those numbers, though, are an improvement over previous polls: 45% thought the shuttle was worth the cost in April and only 40% thought so in January.

The future, though, isn’t nearly as bright, and also a bit contradictory. While 80% have a favorable opinion of NASA and 72% say it’s important to have a human spaceflight program, respondents were split on cutting spending on space exploration: 41% said spending should be cut versus an equal percentage who disagreed. Space advocates can take solace, though, in that in the polls earlier this year the number who wanted to cut spending was around 50%.

In addition, the poll found that 40% thought the government should fund space exploration, versus 32% who thought the private sector should pay. That’s not too much different from the April poll (where the split was 36% government and 38% private sector), but the kicker is this: “Interestingly, most entrepreneurs and private company employees feel the space program should be government-funded, while the plurality of government workers feel the private sector should handle the expense.”

66 comments to Let the other guy pay

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    These polls seem to have moderately variable results. I think that more useful data would come from averaging the polls over a long period (maybe even as long as a Presidential term) to filter out all the irrelevant ‘noise’ such as economics and sporting results that will make pople more or less interested in such things as well as more or less optimistic.

    FWIW, Administrator Bolden’s recent public missteps and the President’s proposals have got quite a bit of publicity outside of the community. That may have forced more in the wider world to develop opinions on the matter.

  • Anne Spudis

    July 17, 2009
    Majority of Americans Say Space Program Costs Justified
    Percentage has grown since 1979
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/majority-americans-say-space-program-costs-justified.aspx

  • Anne Spudis

    [……but the kicker is this: “Interestingly, most entrepreneurs and private company employees feel the space program should be government-funded, while the plurality of government workers feel the private sector should handle the expense.”]

    I wonder if this “wish” deals more with manned space flight costs vs robotic probes.

  • “Interestingly, most entrepreneurs and private company employees feel the space program should be government-funded, while the plurality of government workers feel the private sector should handle the expense.”

    Anne Spudis could have a point here, it might very well be different aspects of space flight these people are answering the polls about.

    Polls can be useful, but only if they are done in the ‘scientific blind study’ way.

    All too often they are used to enforce a predetermined end result and self-fulfilling prophecies.

  • Anne Spudis

    From the numbers, I see a majority of Americans want a U.S. manned space program but when it comes to those who might be relied upon to conduct manned exploration, those parties seem to want someone else to foot the bill.

    As always, it is the public that pays for it, either through services purchased or through tax funded programs.

    The government must show it is possible to use space resources to expand into space (tax dollars) before commercial companies can attract the private investment they need to build on that market.

    The paying public will benefit from new technology and resulting economic expansion.

    If space exploration retreats to unmanned probes, public interest, as well as funding and space commerce will suffer.

    Our course, I speak of the U.S. program. Other countries see the value of lunar/cislunar and its importance to their national interests. They learned from watching us, in our heyday.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Returning to the “root” of the original article – this is partly a question about how history will judge the Shuttle program. Just as Ben Russell-Gough has a good point that the results of polls should be averaged, so should the “Shuttle program” results.

    Sadly, the Shuttle will be judged more by the individual and institutional mistakes that led to the two lost vehicles than it will by the accomplishments of the team. The two lost vehicles were lost by errors of people – ignoring indications of problems and creating a culture where the people with actual data were not listened to.

    That led to flying a vehicle outside of it’s certified limits – cold, and to not investigating the risk of foam shedding. Had the management been correctly trained and supervised, the Challenger accident might never have happened. With that well trained management, the Columbia might have not been lost. Under different circumstances the Shuttle legacy would have been much different. And the costs would have been viewed differently.

  • It is encouraging to see substantial public support for space exploration, however, the confusion of who should pay the bill, so-to-speak, needs attention. Deep space exploration, as opposed to some tourist or resource mining ventures, will require government investment and ideally it will need to become an international commitment. To expect the private sector to pick up the bill without there being a clear return on investment is erroneous. Yes, the private sector is involved and will increase that involvement, but either as contractors to governments or as entrepreneurs investing a things like space resorts or suborbital tourist flights or mining operations on selected asteroids or possibly parts of the Moon. All of this can produce a strong space economy.

  • Anne Spudis

    CharlesTheSpaceGuy wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 10:49 am [Returning to the “root” of the original article –…..]

    Questions – Space Program – October 1-2, 2010
    National Survey of 1,000 Adults
    Conducted October 1-2, 2010
    By Rasmussen Reports

    1* The space shuttle program will end this year after nearly three decades of flight. Has the space shuttle program been worth the expense to taxpayers?

    2* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of NASA?

    3* Given the state of the economy, should the United States cut back on space exploration?

    4* How important is it for the United States to have a manned space program?

    5* How important is it for the United States to have a space program that relies upon unmanned research spaceships?

    6* Should the space program be funded by the government or the private sector?

    NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_questions/october_2010/questions_space_program_october_1_2_2010

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 9:19 am

    The government must show it is possible to use space resources to expand into space (tax dollars) before commercial companies can attract the private investment they need to build on that market.

    Do you have any historical precedents for your economic theory?

    Commercial companies respond to demand, and then try to fulfill that demand with supply. Sometimes they will anticipate demand and create supply in advance, such as in the stockpiling of minerals during low demand.

    The Government has a different goal in exploration, which is generally in knowledge creation. But other than creating demand, the government doesn’t have a clue how to run a business or demonstrate marketplace viability.

    Investors want to put their money into an expanding marketplace, but they will be wary if the only customer is one that is unpredictable (i.e. the U.S. Government).

    The model that I think applies best is when the government has outposts that it needs supplied (like the ISS), and the commercial companies providing the supplies end up expanding their operations past the outpost and create their own marketplace of need, which eventually doesn’t need the outpost anymore.

    Tying back to the theme of the poll, I don’t see the public wanting the government to spend a whole lot on space. Yes they love watching new stuff, especially if it is entertaining or dangerous, but I think space is becoming yet another place that we live and work at – no different than real life.

    Because of that, unless there is a huge need for the U.S. to expand into space, I think our expansion will be based on the natural growth of the space marketplace, which could be slow.

  • Robert G. Oler

    CharlesTheSpaceGuy wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Returning to the “root” of the original article – this is partly a question about how history will judge the Shuttle program. ..

    in my view history will judge the shuttle program in large measure based on the success (or failure) of whatever “era” comes next.

    contemporary views on something are usually transient in terms of history, which generally judges things in a line of events not as a singularity.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Commercial companies respond to demand, and then try to fulfill that demand with supply. Sometimes they will anticipate demand and create supply in advance, such as in the stockpiling of minerals during low demand.”

    Some businesses are built on a precieved demand where none actually exist at all. There wasn’t a demand for frisbees until they were actually marketed. I believe there will be a large segment of this for the space economy of the future. Like space based reality shows, space sports et cetera where there will be no demand at all until the product or service actually comes into existance.

  • Anne Spudis

    Ron.

    “Government” as in $$$$$$. “Government” as in promoting national interests. “Government” as in entity interested in a healthy economy that they can tax.

    And do you have something against companies refurbishing, moving or having access to their assets in cislunar space? Do you deny the possibility of an infrastructure using the Moon’s location and resources to leverage that valuable access by robots and humans?

    The public is more complex than you realize. They are proud of their country’s space program, hopeful we can return to the Moon and eventually open space up to everyone—a dream long held out to them as possible. It’s vital to the human condition to do, and to go further.

    And btw, government doesn’t create knowledge — they may fancy eggheads that spout knowledge but knowledge flows from curious people exploring the unknown.

  • Robert G. Oler

    And do you have something against companies refurbishing, moving or having access to their assets in cislunar space? Do you deny the possibility of an infrastructure using the Moon’s location and resources to leverage that valuable access by robots and humans?…..

    the problem for people like you…is that you cannot explain how we get from “no infrastructure” on the Moon to what you suggest…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    Well, people, (not me) are currently getting that ready for you.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Some businesses are built on a precieved demand where none actually exist at all.

    Agreed, and in fact an argument could be made that SpaceX was doing this with their launch business, as well as their Dragon capsule. For them, the COTS/CRS program was a big payoff for their gamble. But speculative investment, while a huge part of our economy, but it’s not a good way to develop a frontier.

    There wasn’t a demand for frisbees until they were actually marketed.

    There a difference between “need” and “want”. In space, you need oxygen and food to survive, but you don’t need a frisbee. In some ways this also highlights the difference between sub-orbital tourism like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX – VG is entertainment whereas SpaceX is transportation. Both can be valid business models, but their viability is dependent on two different types of customers, since you can survive without taking sub-orbital flights, but you can’t survive without supplies in space.

    Like space based reality shows, space sports et cetera where there will be no demand at all until the product or service actually comes into existence.

    I think this will eventually happen too, and in fact I think it will be critical to attracting people and money to space. But these will be offshoots of an existing demand for logistics, not the primary driver.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    that should be “entertaining”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Do you deny the possibility of an infrastructure using the Moon’s location and resources to leverage that valuable access by robots and humans?

    Never have. But I’m against building infrastructure before it’s needed, which is generally what the “Moon First” groups advocate. It’s the same with an HLV, where there is no demand for larger payloads or even larger diameter payloads, but “people” want to spend money building an HLV instead of doing stuff in space (including robotic ISRU exploration). That is backwards.

    The public is more complex than you realize. They are proud of their country’s space program…

    As a member of this complex group (i.e. the public), I can tell you that space, like NASA’s budget, plays a very small part in my life and those around me. The rest of my family is hardly aware of what is happening in space, but would be glad to tell you that “yeah, OK, it’s neat we did all that stuff in space, but excuse me while I concentrate on more important things like school, work, family members in Afghanistan, or who’s singing on Glee tonight”.

    To a degree, we’re not going to be able to justify doing stuff in space because “it’s exciting” – certainly not through the government. Space in some respects is no more exciting than what my neighbor does as a professional diver (i.e. another member of the public), so the justification really boils down to our desire as a nation to expand our presence off of Earth.

    But as with all things in life, until there is a need to get excited about something (like an impending asteroid strike), the public will depend on it happening without their input or interest. Heck, the Moon was just taken off of NASA’s “next destination” list, and the public yawned. I think you need a different marketing plan Anne… ;-)

    And btw, government doesn’t create knowledge — they may fancy eggheads that spout knowledge…

    Actually I said “The Government has a different goal in exploration, which is generally in knowledge creation”, which means they pay “eggheads” to expand our knowledge – you know, like what Paul Spudis has done. Now you know better what he does than I, but generally I favor the government paying for pure research, which quite often filters down to the private sector and is put to use in revenue generation.

  • Anne Spudis

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 2:05 pm [that should be “entertaining”.]

    I doubt your amusement figures in their work.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It is possible, given the results, that people who are actually in private business know what the commercial sector can and cannot do and have concluded that leading edge exploration needs to have a government element.

  • Anne Spudis

    Ron,

    We all have lives. Congratulation on yours.

    And, people do understand how space exploration has improved their lives, in so many ways.

    The snide “Moon First” label is interesting. What is it now, “Asteroid First?” As long as it’s “first,” does someone “lose?” Is this elementary school?

    I agree when one SAYS we have to do something exciting in space, they don’t have a clue. The mere act of going into space and doing something innovative and groundbreaking IS EXCITING (ie resource utilization) . I don’t need someone on a blog or writing a science news article to TELL me when to be interested or which program is worth my interest.

    The public just answered a poll (top of page) that is anything but a yawn.

    They don’t just pay eggheads to go forth and expand our knowledge. They support promising programs that employ people, with the hope we can advance our understanding of the world around us. When new ideas come from having that opportunity, we all benefit. Pure research is valuable but when tackling a stated objective, necessity (the mother of invention) pushes us to discover things no one alive is smart enough to envision.

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    The public just answered a poll (top of page) that is anything but a yawn.

    The pollsters telephoned a bunch of people that gave Yes/No or A/B/C answers – not of lot of depth there. And the poll did not reveal how much the public focuses on space issues, so you and everyone else has to guess about that.

    Based on what the public reaction was to removing the Moon from the NASA “next destination” list, the Moon is not of great interest to the public. That doesn’t mean NEO’s are any more interesting, but I think it means that the public really isn’t focusing much on space in general, so I don’t see it as a validation of anything. In fact, I don’t think the questions they asked were even valid choices, so that is why I pretty much write off any in-depth analysis as flawed given the factual basis it’s starting with.

  • Anne Spudis

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 3:49 pm [……Based on what the public reaction was to removing the Moon from the NASA “next destination” list, the Moon is not of great interest to the public.]

    How did you expect them to act? True, we all have a lot of concerns at the moment. But because they aren’t marching on Capital Hill over NASA’s flexible path, hardly is a measure of their interest.

    Since you don’t like the questions, what would you have asked — and who do you feel they should ask to get the proper answers?

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “There a difference between “need” and “want”. In space, you need oxygen and food to survive, but you don’t need a frisbee. In some ways this also highlights the difference between sub-orbital tourism like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX – VG is entertainment whereas SpaceX is transportation.”

    I agree and disagree to a point. In economics:

    “a luxury good is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, and is a contrast to a “necessity good”, for which demand is not related to income”

    Luxury goods have a tendancy to become “normal” goods or even “inferior” goods over time as more people become wealthier. For me, Virgin Galatic is marketing WK2/SS2 as both a luxury good, for those doing tourism, and a normal good when it will be used to launch standard space experiments.

    I agree on the logistics part of your arguement and have said it would be wise to put people into space for 5-6 months at a time so that more cargo flghts will be needed increasing flight rates.

    —–

    Anne Spudis wrote:

    “They don’t just pay eggheads to go forth and expand our knowledge. They support promising programs that employ people, with the hope we can advance our understanding of the world around us”

    You are mixing a lot of different goals there and rolling it all into a single reasoning, which overall would then be wrong.

    Government funding, as it is relates to this topic, should be about two different and usually, diametrically opposed ideas. The expansion of knowledge for knowledges’s sake, or the creation of material wealth.

    If the government is going to “employ people” without being concerned about which role that employment is going to play it can be a total waste of funding if the actual desired goal is not being achieved.

    If we are going to the moon for science and to understand the role of Luna in planetary and solar system mechanics then don’t try and sell it as a jobs program or somehow commercial can be involved.

    If are intentions are to goto the moon to exploit resources then a totally DIFFERENT funding system has to be undertaken and government should be more the passenger in the backseat with the big checkbook rather than the person designing, building and driving the car.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    no what is “entertaining” to me is a group of people (you, Paul, and a few others) arguing for a lot of costly exploration when there really is no basis in the terms of national infrastructure for it.

    It is about like arguing in Roman times that a few brave souls should pick up some boats and head west from Spain…

    there is no real commercial or government infrastructure that is capable of exploiting any resources on the Moon, no matter what their concentration or type is…

    But folks like you and Paul and Whittington and a bunch of others keep making the same old arguments all of which have simply stopped working.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    Vladislaw wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    As is often noted, space dollars are spent and space jobs happen here on Earth.

    A lot of money is wasted on government goals.

    With space, there is the expectation of excellence and advancement, and a return on the investment.

  • Vladislaw

    Anne Spudis wrote:

    “As is often noted, space dollars are spent and space jobs happen here on Earth”

    I realize this Anne, but just because space dollars are spent and jobs happen on earth, are those jobs expanding wealth or Knowledge and which are they SUPPOSED to be achieving? Are they productive jobs?

    For me, when I read NASA’s mandate for when it was created in 1958, is not the same NASA mandate as the current one that was modified under President Reagan. Every President since Nixon has called on NASA to both utilize more “out of house” commercial companies and to push cutting edge technology into the private sector. This change is the difference between expanding science/knowledge and creating and expanding material wealth.

    NASA does not do a very good job at wealth creation it usually happens in spite of them. In fact they seem to do everything they can to impede it. I would not want to see NASA given the job of trying to create wealth by utilizing resources on the moon.

  • Reality Bites

    With space, there is the expectation of excellence and advancement, and a return on the investment.

    Goodbye Constellations, we hardly knew ya!

  • Anne Spudis

    Vladislaw wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 5:21 pm [….NASA does not do a very good job at wealth creation it usually happens in spite of them. In fact they seem to do everything they can to impede it. I would not want to see NASA given the job of trying to create wealth by utilizing resources on the moon.]

    That isn’t their job. But NASA needs to demonstrate the feasibility of identifying, accessing and collecting space resources. Isn’t that what they say they’ll do with an asteroid? Why is the Moon off limits? Too practical? Too accessible? Too what?

    I’m not going to defend NASA’s implementation of the Vision. Commercial space development should be our goal for future space access.

    We need a market. The Moon provides us with the resources to have one.

  • Wodun

    Forty percent (40%) of Americans feel the space program should be funded by the government, up slightly from April. Thirty-two percent (32%) say funding for the program should come from the private sector.

    More more interesting question would of been to see who supports dual track funding from the private and public sectors. Perhaps 72%?

    An overwhelming 72% say it’s at least somewhat important for the United States to have a manned space program, including 35% who say it’s Very Important.

    Here is some red meat for the anti-Tea Party trolls,

    Forty-one percent (41%) believe the United States should cut back on space exploration, down nine points from January, but an equal number (41%) disagree.

    Of course we don’t know the politics of either 41%.

    It would be interesting to know what the respondents think exploration is. Also what do the 72% of supporters think the space program should be doing is 40% want less exploration.

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    With space, there is the expectation of excellence and advancement, and a return on the investment.

    You keep thinking that there is some magic aura around NASA, when in fact it’s just another government agency. The magic it did have ended a long time ago, and there is no replacement on the horizon, not should there have to be. And really doesn’t the “expectation of excellence and advancement, and a return on the investment” apply to more than just NASA?

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    NASA needs to demonstrate the feasibility of identifying, accessing and collecting space resources.

    Maybe they will do it, but they don’t need to. The Moon is one of many places in the Solar System that we can use for resources, but which ones, and when, are still TBD.

    Isn’t that what they say they’ll do with an asteroid? Why is the Moon off limits? Too practical? Too accessible? Too what?

    If you’re asking the question, then you’re demonstrating that you don’t retain information over time.

    NEO’s represent something new and untried – we’ve been to the Moon, we know how to land & return astronauts safely, and we can do this again whenever we want. But we have never ventured past the Moon, and doing that means we have to tackle a number of issues related to journeying to Mars or anywhere beyond the Moon

    Also, the Moon has a relatively large gravity well, which means that landing, staying and launching from it require technologies only needed for the Moon, whereas going to an NEO, besides the deep-space capabilities, requires spacecraft systems that can be used for any travel in space.

    It’s time will come, but it doesn’t have to be first, and it doesn’t have to be NASA.

    You know Anne, if you think the Moon is such a great potential market, then you should spend your time creating a company that will exploit it. Prove us all wrong…

  • Wodun

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    But I’m against building infrastructure before it’s needed, which is generally what the “Moon First” groups advocate. It’s the same with an HLV, where there is no demand for larger payloads or even larger diameter payloads, but “people” want to spend money building an HLV instead of doing stuff in space (including robotic ISRU exploration). That is backwards.

    No one will create a payload for a HLV if a HLV doesn’t exist. No one will create a HLV without a payload to go in it. It is a catch 22.

    Government action at either end of the problem (HLV or Payload) could help create new markets. Preferably in a non porky way.

    For me the choice isn’t between HLV or current EELV’s. I want both. But in a time with limited funds, it would be nice to do something BEO with what we have. It is a short term solution.

    NASA could do both with its current budget but that would require some drastic shifts in spending priorities. IMO, there are other organizations that might be more appropriate to fund some of NASA’s earth sciences missions, like universities, charities, and advocacy groups.

    Maybe a HLV market will spring up on its own but government could be a catalyst in getting things going.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Wodun wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    No one will create a payload for a HLV if a HLV doesn’t exist. No one will create a HLV without a payload to go in it. It is a catch 22….

    no one will create a payload for an HLV that is not affordable.

    And so far government has seemed to have proven it cannot create a launch vehicle that is competitive in the market.

    thats the end of the story

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Wodun wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    No one will create a payload for a HLV if a HLV doesn’t exist. No one will create a HLV without a payload to go in it. It is a catch 22.

    So? If we don’t have a defined need, then what spec are we building an HLV to? The answer is we don’t know what size payload to build an HLV to, because we don’t really know why we need one.

    The thing is, we are not at a point where the aerospace industry is telling us we can’t do “X” because of a defined problem (size or weight), and that they have ruled out the existing alternatives (design smaller sub-assemblies). In order for that to happen, you have to have a project to build something big, and we don’t have one of those.

    We have lots of launchers today that we can use to build large structures in space. We could build another ISS, and spend far less in launch costs compared to the current one. We also have all of the ISS-qualified hardware that we can use to build new spacecraft or space stations, which would mean that overall costs would be kept down, and those fit on current launchers.

    We do have larger launchers that can be brought online, but there is no demand for them. Atlas V Heavy is 30 months away from being operational when ordered, and it can accommodate payloads up to 64,820 lbs to LEO, with payload sizes wider and longer than what the Shuttle could accommodate. Falcon 9 Heavy is being advertised for $95M/flight (a real bargain) and could put 70,548 lbs into LEO.

    Right there that is near-term capacity increases of 28-40%, without the government having to pay $B in R&D – but no one has ordered an Atlas V Heavy or Falcon 9 Heavy.

    Until we have a defined need, we don’t need an HLV. We have alternatives that are available, and they are not holding us back from going anywhere.

  • Coastal Ron wrote:

    You know Anne, if you think the Moon is such a great potential market, then you should spend your time creating a company that will exploit it. Prove us all wrong…

    The simplest proof is that no other nation has bothered to go to the Moon since we left in 1972, and no one is seriously planning to go any time soon.

    And for the loony-bin crowd, no, the Chinese don’t have any immediate plans to send taikonauts to the Moon.

  • reader

    Okay, here is what i dont get. To be qualified to offer an opinion, of whether something was worth the cost, you have to know the cost at least within the order of the magnitude, and you have to accurately be able to identify the value returned.

    Was the polled group assessed in that way ? I’d sure like to know what the average guess on the TCO of the Shuttle program has been. And exactly what value have we gotten out of it ( saying Teflon should automatically disqualify anyone )

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    There seems to be this idea that the Moon is a required destination since it has ‘resources’ that we need here on Earth. As yet, apart from the old He3 rubbish, I haven’t yet found anyone who is prepared to identify those resources that are apparently so limited on Earth but available on the Moon as to make the case for the large investment in space infrastructure.

    What exactly do these ‘Moon resources’ consist of? Anyone?

  • Vladislaw

    Anne Spudis wrote:

    “That isn’t their job. But NASA needs to demonstrate the feasibility of identifying, accessing and collecting space resources.”

    Actually Anne, that IS their job, to push technology into the commercial sector, creating small businesses and wealth. NASA then can utilize those products and services as COTS (commercial off the shelf) which all agencies of the federal government are supposed to do, as it lowers cost for the tax payer.

    “DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS

    Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.”

    DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
    Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

    (c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

    Congress then charges the NASA Administrator to:

    “FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION
    Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall–

    (3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
    (4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
    (5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government. “

    There it is all laid out for you.

    Once NASA develops something, push the information out.. not letting it gather dust in a file cabinet.

    Then seek to commercialize it.

    Finally, use the product or service as COTS and providing an immediate market for it.

    The reason this is so important, the creation of wealth, is so that it generates new tax revenue for the federal government. NASA doing something in house and hoarding results and insisting no one else should do it is not the way.

    You want to commercialize the moon then send one astronaut, have him filmed walking around the moon and have him pick up ANYTHING that sparkles and say “wow .. a lunar diamond! they are just laying around and you can pick them up.”

    Then have that astronaut return and auction off the first lunar “diamond” on ebay and let some billionaire buy it for 100 mil for his wife.

    That is how NASA can open up the moon.

  • Googaw

    “Historic shuttle”? Gee, if it was *that* important, I guess it was probably worth it after all.

    What happens when we ask the poll question with more accurate language, for example “costly shuttle”, “over-budget shuttle”, “hundred billion dollar shuttle”, “”shuttle, which proved to be too expensive to fly commercial satellites”, “white elephant called the shuttle”, etc.?

    Or gee, I don’t know, just plain “shuttle”?

    Ask the question in the “right” way, and you get the poll numbers you want.

  • reader

    As yet, apart from the old He3 rubbish, I haven’t yet found anyone who is prepared to identify those resources that are apparently so limited on Earth

    Here is the catch : the resources available on Earth are not always available to you or your nation. Why ? Because someone else owns them.

  • Bennett

    reader wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    ( saying Teflon should automatically disqualify anyone )

    Good call, but add Tang. Dear Mr. President, no one in their right mind likes Tang. As per your speech at KSC, you lost me there.

  • Googaw

    Do you deny the possibility of an infrastructure using the Moon’s location and resources to leverage that valuable access by robots and humans?

    How could anybody be a denier? Cast the deniers into the flaming tar pits of Venus! Of course it is possible and therefore it will happen, and soon! I believe! I believe! Spend my childrens’ W-2 money to make our dreams come true now!

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    …walking around the moon and have him pick up ANYTHING that sparkles and say “wow .. a lunar diamond!

    A fan of “The Man Who Sold the Moon”?

  • Rhyolite

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 1:14 am

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Rhyolite

    Wodun wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    “For me the choice isn’t between HLV or current EELV’s. I want both. But in a time with limited funds, it would be nice to do something BEO with what we have. It is a short term solution.”

    If* we decide that we have to have an HLV, then the best course would be to have an EELV derived HLV. ULA has shown a very straight forward path to a 70 mt HLV based on 7 common cores that could be done with very little new development and therefore at a reasonable cost.

    Building more cores would lower the cost basis for existing users and improve our non-NASA access to space. It is a good national policy move.

    It also solves the payload catch-22. An EELV derived HLV can go back on the shelf while payloads are developed without having to carry along a whole separate HLV standing army while we develop those payloads. We would only pay for an HLV when we need it.

    (* That’s not to say I am convinced of the need for an HLV.)

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    reader wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    ‘Here is the catch : the resources available on Earth are not always available to you or your nation. Why ? Because someone else owns them.’

    Well if you can’t afford to buy them then the chances are pretty good that you can’t afford a space effort, period.

  • DCSCA

    “The future, though, isn’t nearly as bright, and also a bit contradictory.” <– It's called the Age of Austerity.

    No doubt Beltway bureaucrats will one day figure out there's a difference between 'cutting costs' and 'cutting spending.' It's a matter of efficiency. And that a budget increase less than the previous year's increase is not a budget cut.

  • Anne Spudis

    [ Coastal Ron wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 6:41 pm …………
    NEO’s represent something new and untried – we’ve been to the Moon, we know how to land & return astronauts safely, and we can do this again whenever we want. But we have never ventured past the Moon, and doing that means we have to tackle a number of issues related to journeying to Mars or anywhere beyond the Moon

    Also, the Moon has a relatively large gravity well, which means that landing, staying and launching from it require technologies only needed for the Moon, whereas going to an NEO, besides the deep-space capabilities, requires spacecraft systems that can be used for any travel in space.]

    ———-

    As a money man CR, you should appreciate the cost savings of landing on the Moon vs hanging around an asteroid and extracting water ice (even if there was enough time at the asteroid –which obviously is a problem). On asteroids (the ones we can reach) water molecules are bound inside mineral structures with rock forming elements, like iron, iron magnesium and aluminum.

    Now on the Moon, the ice is free (as large quantities are not bound inside mineral structures) and the energy saved (huge cost savings) to mine lunar ice should be subtracted from the cost of landing on the Moon (which as you note, has a gravity well, though 1/6 that of Earth’s). Then there is the issue with radiation and using the Moon’s resources to shield lunar operations (and missions beyond).

    Now too we should address using robots on the Moon (ease of use due to closeness of the Moon) vs operating robots on an asteroid (long time delays).
    I guess you would say that demonstrating this operation on the Moon has no relation to an asteroid or Mars. I don’t see it that way. All efforts using the Moon will have a valuable return, some scientific, some technical, some for national security, some for commercial operations and a space economy and some for advancing our space reach beyond the Moon.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Personally, if we are going to have a discussion about destinations, and mars vs moon vs asteroids, I’d argue that thats rather a stupid way to look at it.

    Capabilities is a much better consideration. Capabilities & sustainable exploration. And you don’t get that via declaring your intention for a destination. You get it from developing technology

  • Anne Spudis

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 9:20 pm [….The simplest proof is that no other nation has bothered to go to the Moon since we left in 1972, and no one is seriously planning to go any time soon. And for the loony-bin crowd, no, the Chinese don’t have any immediate plans to send taikonauts to the Moon.]

    ———–

    Bury your head in the sand S.C.S. but China is going. Your argument that they aren’t landing as we speak, doesn’t change the fact that their space program has the Moon and ciclunar space (where all commercial and defense satellites reside) as their goal and their defense department (aka China National Space Administration) is actively working that program. They’ve been acquiring a lot of information about our technology over the years and seem quite apt and focused on using it.

    ———–
    The Washington Post has an interesting article today (“History of telecom company illustrates lack of strategic trust between U.S., China”) on a Chinese telecommunications company (Huawei) some will find informative.

    [snip] The NSA called AT&T because of fears that China’s intelligence agencies could insert digital trapdoors into Huawei’s technology that would serve as secret listening posts in the U.S. communications network, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain their relationship with the companies. Huawei, the NSA and AT&T declined to discuss the agency’s intervention in the deal. …..

    Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and seven other senators are accusing the company of links to the People’s Liberation Army and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. In an Aug. 18 letter, they wrote: “Huawei’s position as a supplier of Sprint Nextel could create substantial risk for U.S. companies and possibly undermine U.S. national security.”

    ….In researching Huawei, executives at the Cohen Group (William Cohen — Bill Clinton’s Sec of Defense) discovered that the U.S. government had little idea of the extent of Huawei’s business in the United States. American telecommunications firms are not obligated to inform the government of their purchases of foreign-manufactured equipment.

    Although Huawei has just 2 percent of the U.S. telecommunications market, it is working with many big players. It is involved with Comcast on a project to provide voice calls through cable lines and is in talks with Verizon. Huawei has supplied the equipment for wireless service in Seattle and Chicago and will soon do so in San Francisco…….

    The Cohen Group walked away from the deal, convinced that the U.S. government would not be satisfied that Owens’s firm (former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by Bill Clinton) could ensure the security of Huawei’s equipment. …..

    “China-U.S. relations will continually have twists and turns,” he (Huawei founder and chief executive Ren Zhengfei) writes, “but that shouldn’t stop us from learning from the American spirit of innovation so that we can become richer and more powerful ever faster.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100707210.html?hpid=topnews

  • Anne Spudis

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 8:32 am [….Capabilities is a much better consideration. Capabilities & sustainable exploration. And you don’t get that via declaring your intention for a destination. You get it from developing technology]

    You have it totally backward. If you don’t have a goal, an objective, a plan, a destination, a dream, a need — if there isn’t any reason to get off your duff.

  • Anne Spudis

    You have it totally backward. If you don’t have a goal, an objective, a plan, a destination, a dream, a need — if there isn’t any reason to get off your duff, you won’t.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Anne – you’ve got a logic breakdown – just because one looks at it from a capability standpoint, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a goal, plan, dream or need.

    Lack of destination doesn’t mean a lack of the others.

  • Anne Spudis

    I disagree but question my logic if that helps your position.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Anne,
    You said

    You have it totally backward. If you don’t have a goal, an objective, a plan, a destination, a dream, a need — if there isn’t any reason to get off your duff, you won’t.

    Now, the last I will grant – if there isn’t a reason, action won’t be taken. But thats not the same thing as having a destination.

    In fact, you listed 6 things, that are all different.
    a goal
    an objective
    a plan
    a destination
    a dream
    a need

    Each one of those is, arguably different (the only one that I would be willing to grant as being equal is goal and objective)

    You can have a goal or objective that isn’t a destination. You can have a plan that doesn’t result in you traveling somewhere (physically, anyway). You can have a dream that involves something that doesn’t require travel (ask MLK, if you want really great details on that). You can have a need for a particular capability (see the Interstate highway system).

    Great big logic hole. Sorry if I got mud on the floor

  • Coastal Ron

    Anne Spudis wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I concur with what Ferris Valyn wrote in response to you, and I wanted to add that you’re also ignoring that the President and the NASA Administrator have been very public about a destination, that of going to an NEO.

    Now you don’t like anything that isn’t the Moon, so you ignore that. And you seemed to think that Constellation was going to make it to the Moon by the VSE goal of 2020, so you ignore that Constellation really didn’t have a firm date for when they were going to land on the Moon.

    In reality, the current NEO “destination” and the old Constellation “destination” would happen about the same point in time – some time in the 2030’s. That debunks part of your argument right there.

    And in regards to needing something to “get off your duff”, all of the projects in the approved NASA legislation have goals that people will be working towards, and many of us do see where this all leads to.

    But apparently you were rudderless during the time between Apollo and the VSE (no official “destination”)? How did you ever manage life without the Moon as an official “destination”? ;-)

    Maybe you’ll take inspiration from Confucius when he said:

    “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

    That’s really where we are in our journey into space, still near the beginning. And we have many things we need to do along the way to make it further. That’s what the NASA is trying to do, and it will unlock your Moon quicker than what Constellation ever would have done. Congress voted – it’s time to get off your duff and move on.

  • Anne Spudis

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 1:19 pm [….Now you don’t like anything that isn’t the Moon, so you ignore that. And you seemed to think that Constellation was going to make it to the Moon by the VSE goal of 2020, so you ignore that Constellation really didn’t have a firm date for when they were going to land on the Moon……….]

    Coastal Ron — Your crystal ball is cracked. Maybe you should try tea leaves because your “analysis of what I believe is wrong.

  • Anne Spudis

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Let me make it easier.

    Inspiration.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Anne – You want something else that provides inspiration, how about the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Course, that only gets $155 Million a year. Somehow, I don’t think thats a fair trade, if you want to talk about inspiration.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Or, let me pose another point – if we took all of NASA’s HSF budget, we could provide half the worlds need for clean water.

    Tell me, isn’t that on some level quite inspirational?

  • Wodun

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    no one will create a payload for an HLV that is not affordable.

    And so far government has seemed to have proven it cannot create a launch vehicle that is competitive in the market.

    thats the end of the story

    Not sure how my comment is in disagreement with yours.

  • Wodun

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    So? If we don’t have a defined need, then what spec are we building an HLV to? The answer is we don’t know what size payload to build an HLV to, because we don’t really know why we need one.

    That is a good point but I often see the argument that there is no need for an HLV because there is no payload and often the other argument that people can’t build a bigger payload because there is no HLV.

    I’m just pointing out the catch 22 in that line of argument.

    Right there that is near-term capacity increases of 28-40%, without the government having to pay $B in R&D – but no one has ordered an Atlas V Heavy or Falcon 9 Heavy.

    Until we have a defined need, we don’t need an HLV. We have alternatives that are available, and they are not holding us back from going anywhere.

    The other part of my comment was that the government could act at either end of the equation to provide a catalyst to the market. Perhaps you would think government would be a better provider of payloads than rockets.

    I don’t think I ever claimed that a lack of an HLV or SHLV is holding us back.

    If you haven’t listened to the September 23, 2010 episode of the Space Show, check it out if you want to listen to two number crunchers talk about fuel depots vs SHLV.

    http://www.thespaceshow.com/

  • Wodun

    Rhyolite wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 1:32 am

    (* That’s not to say I am convinced of the need for an HLV.)

    Ya, I’m not advocating for a specific HLV. I do think down the line one would be useful, especially if someone wanted to build an industrial facility on the Moon or anywhere else.

    I don’t think the people arguing for only using EELV’s now think an HLV or SHLV will never be needed or useful, just that we can do a lot with our current EELV’s. Which I agree with.

  • C.R. Keith

    @CoastalRon- “NEO’s represent something new and untried – we’ve been to the Moon, we know how to land & return astronauts safely, and we can do this again whenever we want.” you’d do well to review the parametes of the manned lunar landings before posting something as silly as ‘been there done that’ babble. Bottom line: Very short stays, months if not years apart, landing at lunar dawns. Impressive for its time but hardly worthy of checking off the box that the place has been explored. NEO exploration is perfect for robotic probes and a waste of limited resources in this period for human space exploration. The moon is the place to go. And China will go there soon.

  • Ferris Valyn

    The moon is the place to go. And China will go there soon.

    And we should care because????

  • Coastal Ron

    Wodun wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    I don’t think I ever claimed that a lack of an HLV or SHLV is holding us back.

    Sorry to have implied that.

    That is a good point but I often see the argument that there is no need for an HLV because there is no payload and often the other argument that people can’t build a bigger payload because there is no HLV.

    We can all think of what we’d send up if we had 25, 70, or 200 ton launch capability, but that misses the point. We don’t even have a possible program that requires high mass needs, and even if we did, we haven’t done the trade-off studies to determine if current launchers can accommodate the payloads, and for how much.

    NASA (and Congress) has been going about the launcher question the wrong way. They should identify the need, identify the budget, and create a competition to identify the best solution. The best solution might require a larger launcher, but at least NASA will have the facts to determine the trade-offs ($ vs capability or time).

    Instead, Congress is mandating a solution to a problem that doesn’t yet exist, and may not for quite a while. By adding a non-competitive launcher into the marketplace, they skew the market forces that would build larger capacity as the market needs it. No one will compete with the government, so once the government decides to build an HLV, no company will pursue that market without lots of government funding.

  • reader

    ” Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ October 8th, 2010 at 4:03 am
    reader wrote @ October 7th, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Well if you can’t afford to buy them then the chances are pretty good that you can’t afford a space effort, period.”

    Incredibly naive world view. Not everything is sold on a worldwide fairly traded open market. And there is not enough of everything always available to be sold.

    Not everybody in the world can own a original copy of Mona Lisa, no matter how much they are willing to pay.

Leave a Reply to CharlesTheSpaceGuy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>